Atomic Power Engineering under Falsified Safety Standards

In July 1970 the United States Department of Justice accused the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act and of acting in restraint of trade by restricting the ASME Certificate of Authorization and the use of the Code Symbol Stamps to boilers and pressure vessels manufactured in the United States and Canada. During the succeeding two years attorneys for the parties in the case formulated a Consent Decree without a public confrontation in the Court. Furthermore, the membership of ASME was kept uninformed until October of 1972, after the Consent and Final Judgment had become effective and new procedures had been developed for allowing foreign manufacturers to apply the ASME Code Symbol Stamps to their products. As a consequence, a breakdown in engineered safety standards has been sanctioned and this is undermining the engineering profession's overriding responsibility to protect the public health and safety. This breakdown of professional responsibility is especially serious in the new technology of atomic power. American insurance companies, which have traditionally written 100% insurance coverage for property damage and third party liability against explosions of high pressure steam boilers bearing the ASME Code Stamp, have refused to write such insurance coverage on nuclear reactors. In the author's opinion there is evidence that the Consent was formulated under collusive proceedings and he calls on the members and the Council of ASME to appeal for dismissal of the Consent Decree.     

系统工程相关标准比较研究初探

通过对EIA 632-1998、IEEE Std 1220-2005、ISO/IEC 15288:2002标准的发展、制定方、关注点、对系统工程的认识这4个方面进行分析,认为这3个标准是处于不同层次、代表不同组织要求的标准,也认为从这3个标准反映出业界迄今未对系统工程认识达成一致意见.     

Comments on "A Note on Satellite Dynamics"

Some details of the author's earlier derivation on gyrotorquer dynamics are worked out to confirm that Greensite's derivation failed to generate some important dynamic terms in the original motion equations, contrary to the claim of Guibord and Ahmed. In the above correspondence,1 it is claimed that erroneous terms were usm.     

关于标准制(修)定工作中有关"引用标准"的几个问题

概述了标准在制（修）定工作中,“引用标准”部分常在4个方面出现问题的原因,针对出现问题的原因,提出了解决的方法和应采取的措施。     

Comments on "Unbiased converted measurements for tracking"

We show that there exists a compatibility problem in the derivation of the mean and covariance of the converted measurement errors in L. Mo et al. (ibid., vol.34, no.3, p.1023-7, 1998), and then present a modification to the computation of them, in which both the mean and the covariance are computed strictly conditioned on the measurements.     

Comments on "Angular Spectra in Radar Applications"

In [1], we proposed using "data adaptive" spectrum estimation techniques (e.g., maximum likelihood and maximum entropy) for radar problems such as separating low angle returns from ground reflections. W. White suggests [2] that these techniques will be of little value due to the correlation between the various received signals. In this rebuttal, we present additional conceptual arguments, simulation results and field data which support the utility of the techniques set forth in [1].     

军机适航“安全性分析与评估”条款浅析及其工程实施途径探究

在当今的军机研制过程中,军方借鉴民机的适航管理方式力推适航性审查,以确保飞机的安全性水平.如何贯彻适航要求、如何将适航与安全性设计深度融合成为飞机研制单位亟待解决的问题.本文从飞机总体设计单位的角度,探究适航与安全的关系,对比适航工作与安全性工作的异同,并结合工程实际,对军用飞机研制过程中如何将适航与安全性管理、设计和评估工作有机结合、高效开展的方式方法提出了建议.有效避免了适航工作和安全性设计工作的不协调甚至相互矛盾情况的出现,可供军机承研单位参考.     

Comments on "on Probability of Error in Decision Feedback Equalizer"

The above-mentioned paper [1] derives bounds on the error probability of a decision feedback equalizer (DFE) which are claimed to be significantly tighter than the earlier upper bound of [2]. Unfortunately, [1] makes an unsupportable assumption which reddars the conclusions incorrect. We show that valid bounds can be obtained by the methods of [1], but that for the numerical example of [2] , the resulting upper bound is never tighter than, and sometimes significantly weaker than, that derived in [2]. Similarly, a lower bound derived by the method of [1] is shown for the same numerical example to be very close to the error-free past lower bound previously known.